Last week, federal education minister Christopher Pyne gave a totally deadpan promise of "balance" and "objectivity" when he launched a two-man review of the Australian national curriculum. The review process instantly provoked widespread criticism.

It was largely described as a political stunt, a point of view seemingly justified by the appointment of business academic Ken Wiltshire and education consultant Kevin Donnelly as reviewers. Both are regarded as outspoken conservative culture warriors with links to the Liberal party and Donnelly has had educational connections with the tobacco companyPhilip Morris . Donnelly has also published education articles for News Corp’s The Australian newspaper, the most revealing of which was a muddled tirade entitled Conservative values need championing. Regarding Wiltshire, there will be more later.

Immediately after the announcement, a startling element of religiosity entered the discussion. Donnelly, who runs a one man Education Standards Institute committed to "Christian beliefs and values", announced in an ABC TV interview that government schools needed more emphasis on religion and more recognition of Australia’s "Judeo-Christian tradition". When it comes to religious emphasis, I shall leave Donnelly’s comment to supporters of Australia’s secular public school system. On the subject of our putative Judeo-Christian heritage, this "tradition" simply does not exist. It is actually a neoconservative fiction with a long history of political exploitation.

First used by early 20th century biblical scholars to describe the scope of Old and New Testament studies, it was reused by president Franklin Roosevelt in the early 1940s to signify US solidarity with Europe’s persecuted Jews. It was recycled after 1945 by Christian apologists anxious to convince surviving Jewish communities that the Holocaust was a ghastly cultural aberration.

The concept all but disappeared until the 1980s when it was revived by Ronald Reagan, amongst others, as Moral Majority, the Cold War Christian rhetoric against the (godless) Soviets. After a 1990s hiatus, the Judeo-Christian tradition was more recently given the kiss of life by the US religious right as anti-Islamist sloganeering. Borrowed willy-nilly from these US sources, where it is code for Christians against Islam, the phrase has now become constant theme in Australian neoconservative rhetoric, but it is a theme with at least two massive issues for many Jews, as well as for knowledgeable Christians.

First, as a theological term it is based on what is called the supersessionist or replacement view of Judaism and Christianity. By this I mean that Christianity is regarded as a religion that has superseded its (outmoded and irrelevant) precursor, and consequently, a redundant Judaism is regarded, in condescending fashion, as a religious anachronism.

Second, both scholar and major US Jewish theologian Arthur A Cohen, in his 1969 The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition and US Rabbi and author Jacob Neusner in his 2001 Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition have pointed out at great length that the idea of historic Judeo-Christian harmony ignores, amongst other matters, a 2000-year narrative of theological antipathy and a millennium long narrative of violent persecution of Jews in the name of Christianity.

Bearing in mind that there have been undeniably significant, but theologically disparate, Christian and Jewish influences during the course of modern Australian history and remembering that there exist today genuine (and apolitical) interfaith initiatives amongst Christian and Jewish communities, the term "Judeo-Christian tradition" remains very problematic. Indeed, Cohen comments as follows:

I regard all attempts to define a Judeo-Christian tradition as essentially barren and meaningless … at the end point of the consensus when the good will is exhausted, and the rhetoric has billowed away, there remains an incontestable opposition.

As such, it would actually make much more sense from an Australian cultural and institutional point of view to talk about the centrality of its Greek, Roman and Christian origins, together with contributions from other religions and cultures – not that the blithe neoconservative advocates of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" seem to be at all aware of these very sensitive issues. Or if they are, they are keeping quiet.

It is this example of blundering cluelessness and partiality that does not fill me with confidence about the outcome of the Pyne-instigated review of the Australian curriculum.

As for academic Ken Wiltshire, his balance and objectivity track record needs a closer look too. During the general election shenanigans of late 2010, when independent MPs were being courted by the ALP and the Coalition, Wiltshire wrote an article for The Australian titled On all counts, Coalition deserves independents. Wiltshire’s article strongly urged independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott to throw in their lot with Tony Abbott, citing 18th century Irish politician Edmund Burke as an authority but using only half of a key Burke quote.

On the face of it, Burke seemed to be arguing (from the grave) that MPs Windsor and Oakeshott should follow their (mainly conservative) constituents’ wishes. But Wiltshire totally missed out the rest of the quote, in which Burke concluded that MPs actually have a duty to follow their own consciences. At best, this was a disingenuous act by Wiltshire.

I’m still looking for signs of balance and objectivity. It’ll be interesting to see if the Donnelly/Wiltshire appointments lead to more revelations. If so, maybe we’ll witness yet another Pyne triple axel and double backflip. But this time, probably without Abbott at his side.